We have volunteer poker dealers left and right in home poker games. Tipping the dealer is optional, however, it can serve a great motivator to come back again next week.
There is a weird social dynamic which compels people to tip/donate in poker games. This does not hold true online. I mean there is some sort of analogy there, but don't see the 2 situation as being very equal.
The only way that works is if we dont show up on the weeks we do not get tips. If that happens, others who have interests more openly aligned with our competitors may also want to jump in to fill the void. They will not have been tried during the toughest times in this community and will not have proven their loyalties to the underdog that is bitshares. Or worse they might leave at the first sign they could "make it big" faster by allying themselves with competitors with more resources who rely on the entrenched, centralized power structures that currently exist to promote themselves and their interests. This type of representative might even eventually conclude that town hall style meetups should be retired in exchange for private discussions between pundits and devs, cutting out the little guy and his/her questions/concerns. We might even see bitshares all over television, but promoted by the same people who caused our financial crisis and are open enemies of freedom.
But the question is...how can anyone be certain the people who intend to fill this void will have the same philosophy that investors big and small should have such priceless access to the developers in whose projects they are investing? The only way to find out for sure is to give them a chance...to take a risk at a time when I honestly do not know the risk is safe to take (of course I may be biased here).
It is a risk either way. But I assure everyone, we will all pay either way. The question really comes down to how valuable the people who have proven they will work for nothing (or very little) consistently for almost the entirety of the past year are to the community...and what they would be capable of doing with a captial infusion that is consistent and reliable.
I would prefer to have delegates donate a small portion for sponsorships and in return I and the (expanding) beyond bitcoin crew organize hangouts that anyone can attend for as long as we can have devoted funding to support it. This way the weight of the community can be brought to bare to ask them questions and keep them honest--and this could include altchains. When the majority of the community likes what they are doing and see their value proposition as worthwhile, they get the stamp of approval. The delegates that get that stamp and want to be seen as foundational to the bitshares community would then see giving a small, consistent donation to have a sponsorship slot as an honor given them by the community. The only benefit to these sponsorship slots being that they are openly advertised as being a proponent of the open and transparent discussions that enable the community vetting process. Those who remain in power long enough...and support the system's sustainability over time will be seen like the beacons of light in a dark, uncertain sea of possibility. They will bring stability and trust.
I actually see the hangouts we run as being a potential counterbalance to the problems that arise from large stakeholders having significantly more power than small stakeholders to vote these people into power. It is the only place where you have all consistently been given a voice and direct contact with devs (and potentially delegates) in a way that produces results...not to mention content that enables anyone interested to become a cryptojournalist without ever having to pay out of pocket or join a club.
Sure these may even grow into large debates in the future...but even that will be historically significant and over time crypto historians and journalists alike will see our hangouts as treasure troves of content ripe for the picking. And unlike jstor and other archives, these will not require payment to access because the community accepted the responsibility a LONG time ago to ensure they always remained free to the public.
This is COMPLETELY unique to the system we are building...the one that started in bitshares community...and will always be recognized as such. How can any other crypto compete with this vision?
My question, then, is does the community value this vision enough to support those who would work for chump change, for free, or pay out of pocket to see that vision fulfilled. I can tell you for certain where I stand...and I, gamey, and joeyD have a pretty solid archive to prove it already.
Still interested in opinions though
P.S. julian..thanks for being open and honest with your opinions. Really.
Sent from my Galaxy Tab.